Preview Mode Links will not work in preview mode

Hacks & Wonks

Jun 18, 2021

Today Erica C. Barnett of Publicola joins Crystal as they analyze this week’s news, including: more mayoral candidates than ever supporting limitations of single family housing zoning and providing free transit services, ACLU of WA and the House Our Neighbors Coalition coming out in opposition to Charter Amendment 29 and the misleading rhetoric from the pro CA-29 "Compassion Seattle" campaign, and members of the Seattle Police Department fraudulently registering to vote by using their precinct address instead of their residential address.

As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at

Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. More info is available at



“What Is the Correct Percentage of Single-Family Zoning in Seattle?” by Mike Eliason:

“Amazon provides $100 million to build affordable housing near Sound Transit stations” by Mike Lindblom:

“Seattle mayoral candidates talk free transit, traffic-ticket cameras and greenhouse-gas emissions” by Daniel Beekman:

MASS + Allies Mayoral Candidate Forum (Video), hosted by the Cascade Bicycle Club, moderated by Erica C. Barnett:

Text of Seattle Charter Amendment 29, AKA “Compassion Seattle”:

Statement from the ACLU of Washington on proposed Seattle Charter Amendment 29:

Statement from the House our Neighbors Coalition on Seattle Charter Amendment 29:

“Seattle Navigation Center gets people out of tents, but getting them into housing is tougher” by Vianna Davila and Vernal Coleman:

“Only Two People Have Found Permanent Homes Through Seattle’s New Low-Barrier Shelter” by Erica C. Barnett:

“Where This Year’s Campaign Money Is Coming From” by Erica C. Barnett:

“No Charges Against Cops Who Violated Voting Law; City Finally Buys Shower Trailers” from Publicola:

"Elections Department Will Refer Two SPD Voter Registration Issues to the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office" by Rich Smith

"City reverses course, issues permit for CHOP Art Juneteenth Celebration in Cal Anderson" by jseattle

"Why King County Needs Ranked-Choice Voting" by Girmay Zahilay



Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:00:50] Thank you Crystal. Great to be here. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:00:52] Excellent. I'm excited to have you here as always. You're always covering -- your coverage is great at PubliCola. You actually hosted a forum this week, not the first forum you've hosted this cycle. But certainly another great one. And we've had a lot of things happen during the week from that forum to Juneteenth being on Saturday -- now federally recognized as a holiday after Congress passed it, the Senate unanimously and Joe Biden signed it. Now only if they would do the same thing with the filibuster and others. The King County Council discussing renter protections ahead of the eviction moratorium. King Council Councilmember Girmay to introduce an ordinance to put ranked choice voting on the ballot in November, signature gathering with Compassion Seattle has begun, an SPD officer was in a bizarre and tragic incident -- struck and killed while helping a motorist on the side of I-5, and then her car was stolen, oddly. And then also two SPD officers registered to vote using the precinct address, which is illegal. It's a felony. And they're going to be referred to the Prosecuting Attorney after barely facing any discipline within SPD. So we'll see if that turns out to be anything more substantial -- seems like it is for other people. Let's hope that the cops have to play by the same rules in this instance. That would be a good start in that process. 

But I want to start off talking about the Cascade Bicycle Club Transportation Forum that took place on Wednesday that you hosted, Erica. And I guess overall, what was the forum focused on? What were some of the big highlights and takeaways regarding the candidates?

Erica C. Barnett: [00:02:41] Sure. The forum, which was actually hosted by the Mass Coalition, which includes Cascade and a bunch of other transportation and environmental and sustainability groups, really focused -- we ended up focusing a lot on transportation. There were some questions and some discussion of other environmental issues, as well as equity issues related to transportation.

And it was a really interesting, very substantive forum. I thought the candidates came to it with some pretty different views, I think, of what a sustainable transportation system would look like, for example. But I think a couple of things really jumped out at me about the candidates' responses.

One was just the fact that there's near unanimity now around the idea that single family zoning is exclusionary, which is a term that urbanists have used for many years. To say, look, single family zoning, where you can only have detached, single family houses in an area is based on redlining which is a racist practice, and is a form of modern day redlining, that forces people who can't -- who didn't buy in in the sixties, seventies, when houses were cheap, or who are wealthy now -- it forces people into suburbs and smaller apartments and places where other types of housing are allowed. I remember when I wrote that single family zoning was racist and based in redlining, maybe -- I don't know -- less than 10 years ago, I was lambasted for just suggesting that idea. And now it is just totally mainstream, all the candidates seem to believe pretty strongly that we need to get rid of single family zoning. The other thing that jumped out at me about a particular candidate is that is Bruce Harrell's sort of insistence on this idea.

And he said this about homelessness, too -- that philanthropy is going to be part of the solution to transportation problems. I was not really sure how that's going to work, or how donations are going to solve these big systemic issues, and he didn't really explain, but that seems to be a big theme for him.

Crystal Fincher: [00:05:01] That - yes, that's interesting. I certainly have heard him talk about philanthropy before. It seems like, Hey, if our current system and process is not sufficient enough to address the problems, and we already know that the mega rich are not paying their fair share, as we saw in a recent ProPublica publication after they released the tax returns of billionaires and they're paying less than many people who earn $75,000 a year or $50,000 a year -- why not just tax them? Isn't taxing the most reasonable, sustainable, equitable solution there instead of bending over to beg them for money and essentially hoping that you luck into enough money one time to make a little change -- but can you plan off of philanthropy? It just seems like it is passing the buck and not sufficient enough to address the challenge that we have right now. And [it's] trying to get away from the taxation conversation, which -- we've had the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We've had Amazon and Jeff Bezos say that they'll give X amount for homelessness or affordable housing and that Okay. seems like more of a way, especially while they're fighting against floor taxation, to placate people.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:06:39] Yeah. And it always comes with strings attached. Amazon's contribution, it was largely -- the majority of it is in the form of a low interest loan. So it's not really philanthropy. I mean, philanthropy is, as I understand it is giving, it's not lending.

So, there's that. And the fact is, Harrell's comment on philanthropy, in this case was about Move Seattle, which is supposed to build a lot more sidewalks and bike lanes than it is going to actually build -- just because of the cost of things going up and revenues going down. So his idea is to backfill that, but then, okay -- so, you get a bunch of money from Amazon, let's say -- where are they going to build those sidewalks? Is it going to be in places that are beneficial to Amazon workers, or is it going to be in the places that have historically gone without sidewalks for decades and decades, in Southwest Seattle, in Southeast Seattle and far north Seattle?

So, that sort of idea and the same thing with his idea to do philanthropy for homelessness -- Amazon built a new facility for Mary's Place, which serves women and women with children. And not in any way to denigrate Mary's Place -- they do very important work -- but the biggest portion of the homeless population in Seattle is single men. And it's very, very hard to site a shelter for single men. There's no philanthropy. That's just, you know, philanthropy -- there aren't big businesses lining up to do this work. And so I would be really wary of any money that comes with strings attached. Even if Harrell's sort of vague proposal turned into a plan and turned into money. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:08:33] Yeah. And fundamentally, this may be because I'm a wonk, but I want to hear what you can do, what you as a candidate in looking at your capacity as the Mayor of Seattle, what in your sphere of influence can you do? That to me just seems like passing the buck. "Well, let's get someone else. Someone else needs to do this. And wow, we can really do it with someone else, but I personally don't have a plan to address it." And I think we're at the point where many of the issues that we have require plans from these candidates to address directly. Tell me what you can do as mayor. This other stuff, legislative action, philanthropy, regional help -- all useful and helpful. Sure. But can we count on them? No. So we better have a plan. 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:09:20] And we've had four years of a mayor appointing task forces that make these kind of vague proposals at the end. And it's like a black hole. We're gonna put this taskforce on top of this issue that's really important. And then you either never hear from them again, or they issue a list of eight recommendations that are basically the same stuff they went in, knowing they would need to recommend and do.

So I think that mayoral candidates who say, I want to pass the buck onto Amazon, or I want to pass the buck onto a task force -- I mean, that's just promising more of the same. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:09:59] Exactly. Another issue I was wondering about, that, actually, I've heard some candidates talk about -- some of them have talked about it on this show -- is the idea of free transportation. Certainly not a new idea. Certainly a popular idea, and the fare box -- fares do not cover the transportation system and don't pay all of the bills, but that idea was accepted by, and is being advocated for, by a number of candidates. Did you talk about that in the forum? 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:10:32] We did, it came up a couple of times. It was really-- and that was another issue where I feel like the the window has really shifted. All the candidates except for Lance Randall -- and I'll say, all the candidates who were there, Casey Sixkiller canceled and Colleen Echohawk had a longstanding conflict -- so, the candidates who were there also that they supported free transit, except for Lance Randall. Bruce Harrell said that he wanted to move towards free transit, but in the meantime he supported, in his words, incrementalism from doing things like reducing reducing rates, doing free fares for some folks, and being creative and buying more hours. But overall, everybody did say on the record, we support free transit. I should say, I just remembered, Ace, the architect -- what's his real name? Andrew Grant Houston. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:11:29] Andrew Grant Houston, yes.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:11:31] Ace The Architect on Twitter, which is where a lot of people know him. He did say that the issue beyond free transit is thinking about it in a holistic way and actually making it easier for people to get out of cars and to be on buses, so doing things like changing land use patterns and making more systemic changes in the longterm, so that it's just easier for people not to have to buy cars.

Crystal Fincher: [00:11:58] Which I am a strong advocate of, I think people should truly have a choice of the type of transportation that they want to use. And, if someone is dedicated to remaining in a car, okay. But lots of people, especially in metropolitan areas like Seattle, a car is an inconvenience and it's hard and challenging to park. Parking takes up valuable space and is also expensive.

And so just having to negotiate through that where oftentimes transit or biking or walking, when there are safe options, are better and quicker and healthier options for a lot of people. So to truly have that choice and to not have that choice eliminated because of poor zoning, lack of safe transit ways -- it is necessary.

I appreciate that point being brought up. Was there anything else, overall insightful in just how they saw the possibility to transform the city as we have it today to one where there is that choice, or we do have more reasonable transit options within their terms?

Erica C. Barnett: [00:13:10] Well, I think there was -- and I have to go back and look at their exact answers so I don't mischaracterize anybody, but I think there was sort of unanimity for expanding the Move Seattle levy to cover more and to be larger perhaps. And figuring out a way to build Sound Transit without having to -- they're going through this realignment process because their revenues have come in short -- but figuring out a way to build everything that is promised in Sound Transit without having to go back and pass another levy and wait another however many years to get everything built. 

So, those were kind of the broad themes of consensus: We can't go back. We can't let the pandemic set us back on what is supposed to be a hundred year decision on Sound Transit Three. And so, again, you've followed this stuff for a long time as have I, and it just feels like, compared to previous elections -- even the last mayoral election, not to mention the ones before that -- everything on this kind of progressive transportation revenue and land use issue has shifted to kind of thinking about it more through an equity lens, which I think was not really as much of a factor four years ago. And of thinking of kind of the systemic reasons that people maybe drive cars or people can't afford 2. 75 for a bus fare. 

And that's produced this discussion of free transit, which I just find totally fascinating. I mean, it's something that, Sound Transit I should say, is pretty much dead set against because they say they need those revenues. But it feels like we're moving somewhat in that direction, if not free then more access to reduce fares for more people. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:15:10] Yeah, certainly. And I would imagine that free transit on Metro and not on Sound Transit would potentially changes some usage patterns by some people and that making transit more accessible for some people. I mean, Sound Transit -- I could talk about Sound Transit for a long time. The recent extended plans given, how they're presenting their budget, and delays until potentially 2046 for some alignments is just like, how are we discussing this with a straight face? I'm sorry, it's clownery. What is even happening? How are you even with a straight face taxing people today without delivering today? Sound Transit can do better. 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:15:59] I agree. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:15:59] I can confidently say that we should not accept what they're saying as acceptable and "That's the best that we can do." Sound Transit can do better. They should do better. They should be held accountable for doing better. And, I am encouraged, as you said, with the type of conversation that we're having today, especially in the Seattle City Council and mayoral races, where there seems to be uniform acceptance that we have to do better. That that is not sufficient. And hopefully that pushes the Sound Transit board and organization in a better direction. And hopefully we get some new leaders on that board who will more strongly advocate for that too.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:16:43] Yeah. And just very quickly to be clear, for the mayoral race, this is a really relevant question because the mayor does serve on the Sound. Transit board. That's a given. City Council members can serve on the board. But the mayor does. So the Mayor of Seattle has a lot of influence on that board. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:17:00] Absolutely. Thank you. Well, another thing I wanted to get to was the Compassion Seattle. I think it is ironically named and that there's not much compassion in sweeps, which is what they're trying to put into the City Charter, but signature gathering for the Compassion Seattle Charter Amendment has started.

The initiative is facing fresh opposition from new coalition House Our Neighbors, the ACLU of Washington also publicly took a stand against that Charter Amendment. And there were also some misleading statements made in a campaign forum on Wednesday about that Charter Amendment. But I guess looking at overall the Charter Amendment, where that stands, where the camp stands and in signature gathering, is there anything that you found notable in those events, Erica?

Erica C. Barnett: [00:17:58] Well, a couple of things. So the ACLU coming out against it was very interesting. Compassion Seattle put out a statement, kind of opposing the ACLU's opposition. I think there's just a lot of kind of misleading statements happening from the campaign about what the amendment would do. And that's kind of the basis of all this back and forth. I would just encourage people to actually read the amendment because it's not very long and anything that comes out of the campaign's mouth is much less relevant -- because it's about intent -- than just what it actually says in the amendment.

So the campaign makes statements about how this would mandate funding for treatment. It would mandate funding for all these different services -- for case management, for compassionate things. And it doesn't actually do that. If you look at the amendment itself, it does not do that. It says that 12% of the city's budget, the city's general fund has to go into a Human Services fund that will pay for, in the first two years, 2000 units of temporary or emergency housing. And so what that means is shelter. And the campaign will say, Well, this could include permanent supportive housing. Permanent supportive housing costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a unit. And then you have to sustain it over time with services. And shelter costs thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per bed, depending on what you're talking about. 

So when the campaign says this mandates treatment and services, what they mean is it mandates a minimum of enhanced shelter. So something like the Navigation Center in Pioneer Square -- I'm sorry, in the International District. And that's it. So look at what the amendment actually says when you're hearing all these kinds of grandiose promises. Because a lot of them don't really shake out the way that the campaign portrays it.

Crystal Fincher: [00:20:06] That is true. Can you explain what the Navigation Center is like -- that's what it's mandating -- what is the Navigation Center?

Erica C. Barnett: [00:20:17] Sure. And this is actually, this is another -- speaking of the narrative shifting, and what is possible shifting -- the Navigation Center was really innovative in its time when it was first built. It's an enhanced shelter, which means that people can stay 24 hours. They don't have to pack up their stuff and leave it at seven in the morning. There's some storage for people to keep some of their belongings and you can have pets. You can go with your partner. I believe it is sex segregated in terms of sleeping areas, but you get a little more privacy. People sleep on bunk beds in smaller rooms. So it's not just like a giant room the way, say, like DESC's old Downtown shelter was. So, it's an upgrade from your basic shelter. However, it is still a mass congregate shelter. And one thing the pandemic has taught us is that people do much, much better when they have privacy, when they have a room to themselves to think and breathe, and a door that locks, and a bathroom. I think the Navigation Center has a few stalls, mass showers. And so it's still a shelter. 

And I think the pandemic showed us that we can do better and that people do better when we do better. So, when Compassion Seattle says we're going to do all this amazing stuff, they're talking about something that was amazing when it was first put into place, 5- 10 years ago. But we've moved beyond that now in our understanding of what actually makes people's lives better and puts them on the path to being able to sustain housing or get into permanent housing. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:21:59] Right. And thank you for that -- I appreciate that. I think it is really important to be able to go through what the Charter Amendment actually does say. We will certainly include that in our show notes for those who want to read it for yourselves. And while there's a lot of promises being made far surpassing that, and there was video of a signature gatherer -- a paid signature gatherer actually -- who was saying, No, Compassion Seattle will not forcibly remove someone from anywhere. I don't know if people realize what a sweep is, but that's literally forcing someone to move from an area and you're codifying that in the City Charter. So, that can't be changed -- as the City Council has moved against that, but the Mayor has remained in support and has deployed these sweeps in various areas of the city -- even in defiance of what some communities have asked for. That is literally what that is. You can't put sunshine and a smile on that. That's what it is. 

And also just as a reminder, it is also recommended against by the CDC for being dangerous in a pandemic. And although it is wonderful that the City of Seattle and King County look overall to be at 70% vaccination rate, which was certainly a target, many vulnerable populations, BIPOC populations are not there yet. So certainly taking a vulnerable population that is already struggling in several different ways, compounding that also with the risks brought forward either in congregate shelter or by being swept, which is recommended against -- it does not seem ideal.

We know we can do better. This is a solution; it's not the best solution. And actually doesn't look like it's going to do much to solve the root issue, but make people seeing homelessness happier that they may not have to see it as frequently in their own area. But it certainly isn't finding appropriate shelter and putting people on the path to stable housing.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:24:15] Yeah. And just on the question of sweeps -- I mean, there's been some dispute about whether this would increase the likelihood of sweeps, because it does essentially codify what's already allowed under the law. And that is true. But as Jon Scholes, the head of the Downtown Seattle Association, was saying just the other night at a forum -- the reason they're putting it in the City Charter, he said -- which is the city's constitution -- is so that the City Council can't do anything with it. They can't overturn it. It is in place and it can't be undone. 

Now, of course, they also did this weird thing where they have it sunset after seven years, which is unprecedented -- for a constitutional amendment to sunset. So that speaks to a kind of wishy-washyness about it, or the belief that homelessness will be solved in seven years, which of course, it won't. But yeah, I mean, this is their intent. Their intent is to make sure that no matter what City Council gets elected, no matter what mayor gets elected, this cannot be overturned.

Crystal Fincher: [00:25:25] Which is, I mean -- we've moved, especially now that we've moved to districted elections. The Council moving against this is really -- these are the representatives that people in each area of the City have elected to represent their interests. And to say, You know what? We can't risk those people actually making decisions -- the decisions that the people of the City are electing them to do -- seems really disingenuous. It seems like this is kind of a sour grapes policy disagreement from people who were just unhappy with the direction that the City is going and using this tactic to get back at it and saying a lot of misleading things while they do.

So if what they were doing didn't matter and wasn't consequential, they wouldn't be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pass it and to do it. It is codifying sweeps. That's the purpose. That's why they're spending so much money to do it. And you did an excellent article this week on just where money is coming from in Seattle races in these ballot initiatives, charter amendments. And the money for this is coming from the predicted and predictable place. It's downtown business -- certainly from the downtown area -- who have been advocating for sweeps this entire time. So we see what it is.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:26:50] Yeah, it's very interesting.. I mean, just -- and Seattle Ethics and Elections does a great job of this to be honest. I mean, I can't take any credit for the charts and graphs that are in this post that I did on PubliCola, but it's very, very stark when you look at just the overwhelming amount of money coming from District 7, which includes downtown, for Compassion Seattle. And you can look at the numbers individually, and it's just -- it's real estate firms, it's developers, it's property owners downtown. And they continue to shape the narrative, unfortunately, for this current mayor, but also are trying to shape the narrative in the actual elections. And I think that it's important to remember that Seattle has a lot of neighborhoods other than downtown -- when thinking about issues in general. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:27:48] Absolutely. The last thing I wanted to cover is an item that has been on many people's nerves. And that is actually eyebrow raising that -- just the audacity of it -- the two SPD officers who registered to vote using the addresses of their precinct, which is not where they live, in order to vote seemingly against candidates who they were unhappy with running. What happened here and where does that stand?

Erica C. Barnett: [00:28:19] So I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it was eight officers that registered to vote using SPD precincts. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:28:27] You are correct. 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:28:29] And they won't face criminal charges. There was an investigation by the Office of Police Accountability and what they decided was basically -- they're going to, they got one day unpaid suspensions and oral reprimands in various cases. And three of them retired or resigned before the investigation concluded. And so it's now been referred to the King County Prosecutor and that's sort of where it stands. I mean, this is -- if you think about -- if you or I were to decide that we wanted to vote in -- if I were to say, I really just don't like that Kshama Sawant. So I'm going to register to vote in her district, even though I live in District 7. You know - we would get in a lot of trouble and it would probably be a news story, to be honest, if we were public figures, which we are. So the fact that police officers, most of whom do not live in the City of Seattle and do not vote in our elections, would try to influence or participate in elections that they have no right to participate in is -- I mean, it's pretty appalling.

And the fact that this was sort of -- they sort of received a slap on the wrist as if this was no big deal at all is as you said -- it's infuriating. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:29:56] It is infuriating and you're right -- two are going to be referred to the King County Prosecutor's office. But there were eight. 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:30:04] Thank you. We got there. I didn't have that detail.  

Crystal Fincher: [00:30:07] So thank you -- I appreciate that. Or seven -- I'm looking at the five other officers -- and I'm looking at an article written by Rich Smith in the Slog right now. And including the SPOG president, Mike Solan, who also registered with an incorrect address. And the one thing we know is that they knew they were doing wrong. Why? Because Solan has been posting and created controversy, as he often does, by posting about the people -- the Stop the Steal thing, basically -- voter fraud and stealing the ballot. We just had a number of police officers attend the DC events that led to the insurrection. And the entire premise of people being in DC was that basically Black cities and Black voters -- cities with large Black populations and Black voters -- were just deeply fraudulent and did this in wide numbers, and voted where they weren't eligible when they weren't eligible.

And clearly SPD officers took this to heart and felt that, and got mad about it -- mad enough to take their behinds to DC to protest something that did not exist. And we still don't know if any actually participated in the insurrection, but I actually think that's ultimately irrelevant because just being there is proof of such an indefensible and unacceptable belief and position. It was billed as Stop the Steal -- who was stealing what? For them to be able to answer that question with -- Well, other people are stealing this election from Trump -- is ridiculous. That said, they were happy to call that fraud when it came to other people. They did call it fraud when it came to other people. But somehow it was okay for them to do it. It's like they think they're above the law or something. I am just -- 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:32:09] It is like that, isn't it? 

Crystal Fincher: [00:32:10] It seems so. And one -- for them to get a slap on the wrist, like barely a slap on the wrist. I think it was one day suspension? 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:32:19] Yeah. Yeah. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:32:19] Most of them were committing this literal felony.

Erica C. Barnett: [00:32:23] Yeah, and I think it's -- it's the same in what we saw in the Trump era -- was projection, projection, projection. You sort of imagine people doing the thing that you yourself are contemplating or actually doing. And I think that the vast majority of the verified cases of voter fraud that have been found -- and there are not very many, it's really a handful -- have been Republican voters. So read into that what you will. But yeah it is -- but the fact that there's, I mean -- will these nine or these eight people sway an election? Of course not. But it's the fact that they are exemplars of the community, supposedly. And they are an example, and if they get off with impunity, then more people will be encouraged to just kind of do whatever they want. 

Crystal Fincher: [00:33:15] Yeah. And accepting the vilifying of other people for doing what they themselves are doing, which is what our criminal legal system seems to do consistently. And is it any surprise that if they find it acceptable, and they're such a critical part of the system and how people enter into the system -- is it any surprise that there might be some bias involved with how they police, if they have no problem doing this? Just what does that say about that culture? It seems pretty obvious. 

And again, they should not be above the law, but man, we keep seeing how that is true and it is just disheartening to see. And I hope that through this process and everything else that we've seen, that leaders in the City take seriously the need to bring forth true accountability -- as a new Police Chief is hired and really ultimately this new Seattle Police Officers Guild contract is negotiated, make sure there are levers to bring real accountability within that. And don't accept it if it doesn't have it -- that should be a litmus test. 

Erica C. Barnett: [00:34:22] Well put.

Crystal Fincher: [00:34:23] Well, thank you so much, everyone, for taking the time to listen to Hacks & Wonks today -- today on Friday, June 18th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the awesome Lisl Stadler. Our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. I'm also thankful to Shannon Cheng and Lexi Morritt for also being extremely helpful with this podcast. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett, that's Erica with a C, and on You can buy her book Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking Relapse and Recovery at your favorite bookstore. You can find me on Twitter @finchrii, that's spelled F I N C H F R I I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar -- sometimes you need to use the ampersand and instead of the word and, we've discovered -- we're working on that, but be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows  and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. While you're there, leave a review -- it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.